ITAT: Allows Sec. 80P deduction on co-operative society’s
interest income from investments with co-operative bank
Mumbai ITAT
allows Sec. 80P deduction on interest income derived by a co-operative society
(‘assessee’) from its investments held with a co-operative bank during AY
2014-15; Refers to Sec. 80P(2)(d) which provides that income by way of interest
income derived by an assessee cooperative society from its investments held
with any other cooperative society, shall be deducted in computing the total
income of the assessee; Clarifies that “though the co-operative bank pursuant
to the insertion of Sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for
claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but however, as a co-operative
bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative
Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being
enforced in any state for the registration of cooperative societies..”; Relies
on Karnataka HC ruling in Totagars Cooperative Sale Society and Gujarat HC
ruling in State Bank Of India
ITAT: Tax deduction u/s. 194C no reason to treat genuine
developer as contractor; Allows Sec. 80IA benefit
Mumbai ITAT
allows Sec 80IA benefit to assessee engaged in construction and development of
infrastructure facilities, holds that merely because assessee is 'contractor'
to the government for development of roads, it cannot derogate assessee from
being 'developer'; ITAT clarifies that “merely because, in the TDS certificate
tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be
the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor.”; Further,
referring to the legislative amendments in Sec. 80-IA(4), ITAT observes that
from AY 2002-03, deduction under section 80-IA(4) is available even if the
assessee carries on any one of the three types of activities viz. (i)
developing, (ii) maintaining or (iii) operating infrastructure facility; ITAT
remarks that “As per the amended provisions merely on entering into an
agreement with Government for development of infrastructure facility would be
eligible for deduction”
ITAT:Denies deduction u/s. 57
for PMS, professional charges and salaries against dividend / interest income
Bangalore ITAT
denies assessee-individual’s claim of deduction u/s. 57 for PMS charges,
salaries, professional charges against the dividend / interest income
(assessable as income from other sources) for AY 2012-13; Referring to Sec. 57,
ITAT notes that assessee’s claim does not fall under the ambit of deduction
under clause (i) of Sec. 57, further, with respect to allowability of deduction
under clause (iii), ITAT notes that assessee did not establish that expenditure
was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning the
dividend / interest income; With respect to assessee’s reliance on SC ruling in
Rajendra Prasad Moody, ITAT remarks that “this judgment does not help assessee
in the absence of any details as required u/s. 57(iii)..”, also rejects
assessee’s reliance on Tribunal order in East West Hotels ltd, because the
assessee in the present case is not a company and therefore, there is no such
legal compulsion to incur the expenses which are claimed in the present case;
Furthermore rejects assessee’s alternative argument that even if expenses are
not allowable u/s. 57, the same should be allowed against income from capital
gain in the present year or future years, holds that the claim of expenses in
present case is not for those expenses which are incurred on account of
transfer of asset or cost of acquisition / improvement of asset as contemplated
u/s. 48
SC: Dismisses SLP; HC-appeal limitation period begins even if
non-jurisdictional 'commissioner' receives ITAT order
SC dismisses
Revenue’s SLP against Delhi HC judgement; HC had ruled that the words ‘the
Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner’
occurring in Sec 260A(2)(a) (relating to limitation period for filing appeal
before HC) is not limited only to 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief
Commissioner of Income-tax (‘CIT’), clarifies that it could include any CIT
including the CIT (Judicial); HC had rejected Revenue’s stand that unless the
concerned CIT having jurisdiction over assessee receives a certified copy of
ITAT order, the limitation of 120 days within which an appeal has to be filed
does not commence; HC had clarified that in absence of a qualifying prefix
‘concerned’, the receipt of ITAT order copy by any of the officers (designated
as CIT), including the CIT (Judicial) will trigger the period of limitation
No comments:
Post a Comment